Mordechai Vanunu
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-00789, in the name of Sandra White, on Mordechai Vanunu, Israel’s nuclear whistleblower. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the 25th anniversary of the revelations by Mordechai Vanunu regarding Israel’s secret nuclear weapons programme, which is estimated to number over a hundred warheads with the potential to annihilate the entire Middle East; praises what it considers to be Vanunu’s courage and dedication to the cause of the elimination of nuclear weapons; considers that this saw him returned to Israel under suspicious circumstances; further notes that he had been tried for treason and sentenced to 18 years in prison, 11 of which were spent in solitary confinement; understands that, since his release, despite being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 17 times and holding prestigious positions such as rector of the University of Glasgow, he has experienced continued persecution by the Israeli authorities; notes that this has been described by Amnesty International as cruel, inhuman and degrading and has also been condemned by the European Parliament; believes that, rather than be vilified, Vanunu should be allowed to live peacefully in one of the numerous countries to have offered him residence, and is of the view that Israel’s arsenal of nuclear weapons is an obvious barrier in the way of nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East.
17:14
It is important that everyone understands the severity and humanity of the case that is behind the motion. My colleague Bill Kidd will concentrate on the nuclear aspect and I will concentrate on the humanitarian and human rights side.
It is a great honour and sadness to bring the motion before the Scottish Parliament. It is an honour to highlight the enormous courage and conviction of a man who put aside thoughts of his own personal safety to expose to the world the true extent of Israel’s secret nuclear arsenal. It is a sadness to note that 25 years have passed since Vanunu’s conviction for treason, in which time he was held in solitary confinement for 11 years, and that he still suffers persecution in Israel today, not being allowed to speak to anyone outwith Israel. Obviously, the present restrictions on him were put in place simply because he happened to speak to someone who was not an Israeli citizen.
Since his release, Vanunu has been subjected to harassment, intimidation and restrictions on his freedom that Amnesty International has described as cruel, inhuman and degrading and that have been condemned by not only the European Union but the United Kingdom Government. His treatment breaches his fundamental human right to freedom of expression and movement. It also breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which includes the right to leave one’s country, alongside the right to freedom of expression. Let us not forget that the state of Israel is a party and signatory to that treaty.
It is our duty, not only as members of the Scottish Parliament but as honest, decent people, to support those who have suffered a breach of those fundamental rights and those who have been persecuted, and who continue to experience persecution, regardless of where they are or the state that is persecuting them.
Scotland and its people have a proud history of standing up against injustice and speaking out without fear in defence of those who need to be defended. The people of Scotland want those traditions and values to be reflected in this, their national Parliament.
Although what we say may not immediately lead to an end to the persecution of Vanunu and others, it will reinforce Scotland’s empathy with those who suffer and our long-held traditions of equality and justice very far into the Parliament’s future. If some of us—perhaps those who are not in the chamber—were not to recognise that fact and to believe erroneously that, as a devolved Parliament, we cannot speak out on such matters, it would be a great shame and a disservice to those whom we represent, who firmly believe in equality, human rights and freedom of speech.
We cannot reserve or devolve the right to speak out against injustice, and no one body has the moral authority on what is right or wrong. It is for us all to be guided by what we know to be right and to speak out when we know that something is not right. It is right for Vanunu to be allowed to leave Israel and live peacefully in one of the numerous countries that have offered him residence. It is also right for us to speak out against his treatment.
As the motion says, Mordechai Vanunu has been nominated for the Nobel peace prize 17 times. His only desire is to be allowed to leave a country where he is being persecuted and to live a peaceful life free from persecution. We in Scotland and people throughout the world share and support that desire.
17:20
The debate about the international legality of nuclear weapons has been rehearsed in the chamber on a number of occasions, but it bears repeating that the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty prohibits the signatory nations from selling or transferring nuclear warheads to other nuclear weapons states or non-nuclear weapons states.
The state of Israel would have it that it is neither a nuclear weapons state nor a non-nuclear weapons state and that as it is not a signatory to the NPT, it is nobody’s business whether it has such weapons of mass murder in its arsenal—or, indeed, how it may have acquired them.
However, let us suppose that Israel does have those weapons. Picture the scene: an Israeli citizen whistleblows on the programme and is later lured to Rome where he is swooped on by Mossad agents, spirited back to Israel to face treason charges and sentenced to 18 years in jail in deplorable conditions. His crime? He revealed that Israel has hundreds of nuclear warheads when the Israeli Government denies—or does not deny—that that is the case. The reaction of the international community is complicity through silence.
Now let us imagine that Mordechai Vanunu had been an Iranian whistleblower who had revealed that that particular rogue state had a nuclear weapons programme. I am not alone in thinking that, in those circumstances, the man would have been hailed an international hero, with possible sanctions being taken against the state that jailed him on such invidious charges. If some people in this world did not have double standards they would have no standards at all.
Why does the jailing of one man matter on an international scale? It matters because next year there is to be a major UN conference on peace in the middle east, focusing on creating a middle east nuclear weapons-free zone. In that area of seemingly perpetual conflict there is hope for an area free from the Damoclesean threat of the nuclear warhead suspended over the populations of the world.
Yet Israel stands out as the mote in the eye of that vision of peace. Israel holds nuclear weapons. There—I said it. However, none of us could say it in Haifa or Tel Aviv. No Israeli citizen would go on a platform in their own country—or in another country where their words would be reported on back home—and state outright that their homeland holds hundreds of nuclear warheads that are pointed in the direction of neighbouring states.
In the face of that intransigence, how will the UN conference succeed? How will the achievement of a middle east nuclear weapons-free zone be negotiated when the only nuclear weapons state in the region is a state of denial?
Mordechai Vanunu, in talking openly of his country’s opaque policy of nuclear weapons doublespeak, performed an act of humanity, bravery and, sadly, self-sacrifice. He is a hero in the mould of Gandhi and Mandela, who has put the safety of others and the future of mankind ahead of his own comfort and freedom.
The name of Mordechai Vanunu must continue to echo around the world, until the nuclear menace has been faced down and peace and freedom exist in the middle east.
17:24
I thank Sandra White for raising this issue in Parliament today. I welcome the opportunity to express our support for Mr Vanunu and to share his vision of a world that is free from the threat of nuclear weapons.
We recognise Mr Vanunu’s courage when, in 1986, at great personal risk he revealed details of Israel’s nuclear weapons programme to The Sunday Times. The details of Mr Vanunu’s subsequent capture, arrest and imprisonment are well documented, and we have heard how he continues to live under restrictions to his liberty. Perhaps his own words express his commitment and his sacrifice most clearly:
“I have sacrificed my freedom and risked my life in order to expose the danger of nuclear weapons which threatens this whole region.”
We note the views of Amnesty International, which considers Mordechai Vanunu to be “a prisoner of conscience” and calls for his immediate and unconditional release. Those views have been echoed by many renowned commentators and campaigners for international peace, and we sympathise with his situation.
Scotland prides itself on being an open and egalitarian nation that abhors oppression and injustice in any form. The principles of social justice sit at the heart of our society and our beliefs. As these are matters that affect us all, we have a fundamental right to speak up in the name of international peace and justice.
Is the minister not disappointed that no one from the Opposition parties has spoken in the debate? I make it plain that I was to be somewhere else tonight and, had I known that I would be attending the debate, I would have spoken in it. I am embarrassed and ashamed that no one from the Opposition parties has contributed to the debate. Does the minister share my views?
I acknowledge that no members of the Opposition are currently in the chamber. I noted that both the Conservatives and the Labour Party had representatives in the chamber during the earlier speeches. I certainly hope that it was not because I was called that they chose to leave. It is disappointing that no one from the Opposition parties has chosen to contribute to the debate.
We applaud Mr Vanunu’s dedication to the elimination of nuclear weapons and we believe that the restrictions that forbid him from leaving Israel and from living his life as a free man should be lifted.
Closer to home, we, too, live in the bleak and unwarranted shadow of nuclear weapons. Many members who are in the chamber—or perhaps not many but at least some—will, like me, remember growing up with the ever-present fear of the four-minute warning. I, for one, find it hard to comprehend that, more than 65 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, almost 50 years after the Cuban missile crisis and 20 years since the end of the cold war, the fear of nuclear war remains a reality for us, for our children and for our grandchildren.
Scotland is, of course, in a unique position. We are home to the UK’s nuclear arsenal, yet, as a country, we are strongly opposed to nuclear weapons. Recent opinion polls support that assertion, as they indicate that 67 per cent of Scottish people, when they consider cuts in defence, do not want Trident to be replaced.
The economic arguments are also clear. It already costs £2 billion a year to keep the current Trident fleet operational and the total potential costs of procuring and maintaining a replacement for Trident has been estimated at approximately £100 billion.
There are also the very real concerns of those who live near to defence nuclear sites at Faslane, Coulport and Vulcan.
The chamber therefore has an obligation to debate these issues, not only because of civic Scotland’s clear opposition to Trident but because of the widely shared belief that the possession and threat of nuclear weapons are, in fact, barriers to peace.
Mr Vanunu’s example reminds us that we have a choice: a choice to do what we can to remove the oppressive fear of nuclear weapons from our future. We may not currently have the powers in this Parliament to take direct action on nuclear disarmament, but the chamber can express the will of the Scottish people by speaking against the possession, threat and use of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, the chamber has already been clear about its opposition to the replacement of Trident, and only a few weeks ago many members joined me in marking the international day of peace in a members’ business debate raised by my colleague Bill Kidd.
I firmly believe that these debates strike very clearly at the heart of how we view ourselves as a society and help to define our ambition for Scotland. I therefore call on all parties—or would have done so, had they been present—to support Mr Vanunu’s call for a world without nuclear weapons.
Scotland can learn from the ambition of other nations. We look to Norway’s position as an international facilitator for peace. We also look to those countries that are covered by the nuclear weapons-free zone agreements in, for example, Latin America, the South Pacific, south-east Asia, Africa and central Asia. Indeed, as Mr Kidd rightly pointed out, there is a similar ambition in the middle east, where there are far too many weapons of mass destruction. That shows what can be achieved when nations, large and small, campaign for peaceful conflict resolution and persevere in their opposition to nuclear weapons.
I look forward to the day when Scotland can join those and other nations of the world as a nuclear-free country, and I encourage Parliament to support that vision.
I applaud Sandra White for securing the debate, I make clear that the Scottish Government supports the lifting of all the restrictions that are imposed on Mordechai Vanunu, and I call on all to note the 25th anniversary of Mr Vanunu’s revelations by endorsing his vision for a world that is free from the threat of nuclear weapons.
Meeting closed at 17:30.